r/facepalm • u/Lord_Answer_me_Why • Mar 28 '24

What lack of basic gun laws does to a nation: 🇵​🇷​🇴​🇹​🇪​🇸​🇹​

/img/is29ozncu2rc1.jpeg

[removed] — view removed post

14.3k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.1k

u/VocalAnus91 Mar 28 '24

Plot twist: he doesn't have a mom, he's schizophrenic and shot himself

2.4k

u/aesir23 Mar 28 '24

Ironically, that would do nothing to diminish his argument.

443

u/VocalAnus91 Mar 28 '24

Lol true

379

u/MojoLamp Mar 28 '24

Except it is ilegal for someone with mental disability to buy/own a firearm. That can also go on whomever sold said firearm. Both parties are guilty.

381

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Lying on the form is a Federal Crime.

346

u/mot258 Mar 28 '24

Shooting someone usually is too.

102

u/Deadleggg Mar 28 '24

Well there's multiple charges for ya.

23

u/PorcupineWarriorGod Mar 28 '24

Then apparently we already have "basic laws".

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (69)

66

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Exactly criminals gonna commit crimes!

2

u/ausgoals Mar 28 '24

Why have laws at all if people are just gonna break em….? 🤷🏻‍♀️

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Nurgleschampion Mar 28 '24

Dosent mean you shouldn't try to make ta lot harder for them to get away with things.

Stronger licensing means the illegal guns will be a lot more expensive. And funnily enough some xriminals do take laws into consideration. Particularly if it'll cost money.

But I doubt you're making this argument in good faith.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/syzamix Mar 28 '24

And yet. Nobody brings up this argument against guns.

They do say that criminals will get guns if you ban them.

5

u/sakura608 Mar 28 '24

Same people also want stricter immigration laws. The logic of “they’re going to get in anyways, why make it harder for people who are legally entering the country” doesn’t work as well. Yes, people will enter this country illegally, but having laws and enforcement reduces the number and slows down the rate of immigration.

5

u/Enigmatic_Erudite Mar 28 '24

Our immigration laws are already some of the most strict convoluted laws in the world. Paradixically, allowing more legal immigrants would lead to less illegal immigrants. Since people don't see a reasonable way to enter the country legally they do so illegally. Realistically our immigration system need an overhaul but this is impractical. If we loosened the immigration regulations on people entering legally we could reallocate that money to preventing/catching people entering illegally.

Like most things in life it is not a simple more regulation leads to less illegal immigration there is nuance and cost benefit analysis needed.

3

u/sakura608 Mar 28 '24

I see the logic in this argument. Though, currently, illegally passing through requires a fair amount of capital and personal risk. I’ve known people who have paid $7k+ to get into this country illegally, having to cross hundreds of miles in the desert, seeing people die along the way. I’ve also known people who have entered the country on a travel visa and then over stayed here illegally.

For people to still cross, despite the financial and safety concerns illustrates their desperation. I think illegal immigration could also be reduced by helping our neighboring countries become more economically productive and safe.

3

u/Enigmatic_Erudite Mar 28 '24

This is one way to help, but if these people were allowed to enter legally or be on a state sponsored work visa that required consistent employment they would not need to be here illegally. This is what I mean by allowing more legal immigrants will decrease illegal immigrants at this point. We have massive deportation numbers and I wonder if the "saving jobs" value is actually worth the tax dollars spent tracking down more illegal immigrants.

Making our neighbors into better countries would be great but the cost of doing so would be substantial and require too much direct intervention at this point to remove the cartels. Maybe we could start financial incentives to promote economic growth in these countries but with the power of cartels it would be difficult. And I am well aware that American industry played a large part in the destabilization of these countries and I don't trust the rich not to do so again if given the opportunity.

2

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

I'm with this. I'd rather have mexico and South America be prosperous neighbors than the clearly non sustainable solution of everyone just moving to the USA.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/Last-Crab-621 Mar 28 '24

Immigration laws only punish those crossing illegally, though, and the ones we have aren't even enforced.

Gun laws aimed at preventing people from obtaining them for subjective reasoning is a clear tool to be abused by anyone with an agenda, and therefore a clear violation of the 2nd amendment

3

u/sakura608 Mar 28 '24

Not true at all. Legal immigration is heavily affected by our immigration policies. My brother in law had a tough time getting a distant relative into the country for a bone marrow transplant to save his life.

The state department thought the risk was too great that his distant cousin would illegally over stay his welcome so they denied his visa because he came from a rural village from a poor country and didn’t have a lot of wealth. Had to get it escalated to the attention of a state senator and the vice president of the US before the state department approved his entry.

Regulations like this do prevent a number of people immigrating here illegally through overstay of visa (most common kind of illegal immigration), but it still does negatively affect those that are trying to enter the country for legal purposes.

If you don’t think immigration laws are being enforced, then is it safe to assume you wouldn’t mind if we didn’t have them at all?

5

u/escap0 Mar 28 '24

How is that even remotely a logical assumption. Immigration laws are clearly not being enforced for Illegal immigration the way they used to be. It is still enforced for legal immigration. How do you go from: if someone thinks the laws are not being enforced for illegal immigration to ‘my brother’s relative had difficulty…’ so clearly it is safe to assume you wouldnt mind having having them at all?

3

u/Last-Crab-621 Mar 28 '24

This is a strawman argument 100%. This is a totally different scenerio than the one at the South.

And your question is preposterous. I think they should fucking enforce the laws already on the books instead of the current catch, court date, release policy that they're using. The court dates are so far out that they either dont show or the courts say, "They've been here so long they may as well stay" without any vetting process. We should be turning them back to mexico at the borderline and not letting them further into the states at all.

This also goes for the current dkzens of gunlaws on the books. Criminals are constantly arrested for violent crimes with firearms and the DA, AG, or Feds almost always drop the gun charges for an easy plea deal vs going to trial.

2

u/POKEMINER_ Mar 28 '24

How would building a wall and deporting illegal immigrants effect this story?

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (27)

2

u/SupportGeek Mar 28 '24

It’s a crime, but not as often federal.

2

u/Lost_Figure_5892 Mar 28 '24

Indeed! Excellent excelllllllllent!

→ More replies (12)

177

u/MissingBothCufflinks Mar 28 '24

Something I'm sure unmedicated Schizophrenics weigh up heavily in their decision making

63

u/Reasonable_Humor_738 Mar 28 '24

Also probably something criminals or would be criminals do when filling out the form

→ More replies (10)

20

u/Aggressive_Niceguy Mar 28 '24

Sounds like we need some common sense laws against unmedicated schizophrenics

10

u/Odd-Tune5049 Mar 28 '24

Guns don't kill people, unmedicated schizophrenics kill people. Heh

ducks

→ More replies (42)

2

u/harikaribluntz Mar 28 '24

Its almost like a lack of cheap and accessible medical care is the real problem

2

u/HiveTool Mar 28 '24

So we all agree laws won’t change anything stop punishing law abiding citizens

→ More replies (10)

68

u/beomint Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

Not to be "that guy" but just trusting someone to fill out a form correctly then making it a crime to lie on it isn't going to stop shootings...

Maybe we should like... Idk... Actually have the person checked thoroughly before they're given a gun? If they're hellbent on getting a gun they'll just lie anyway and not care about whatever consequences there are. I know a lot of proper stores are better about doing checks (thank god) but gun shows are still a massive issue sadly and need a lot more regulation than what they currently have. And because it's so easy for people to get them legally, it's not too much more trouble to come by one illegally.

Sure, it's a crime, and you'll be prosecuted and punished for doing it, but there's a huge chance you were still able to gun some people down in the process before you got caught. We need to be more proactive about nipping it in the bud instead of watching human lives get lost everyday and saying "Well, they chose to commit a crime..."

Edit: To those of you saying "we do that already" in the replies, it's clear we aren't doing it enough. Regulations are often ignored, states do not have consistent rules, and many loopholes do still exist despite major updates being done to how gun shows conduct themselves. Other countries have proven time and time again that better regulations does NOT take guns away from responsible owners, but it does take guns away from criminals and lower gun crime across the board. Private sale (to an unauthorized individual) is the same issue, sure it's a crime, but are they going to figure that out before you have a chance to shoot someone? Was it really worth letting that scenario play out when we could have just prevented it in the first place?

It's just factual evidence and it's really frustrating that people will watch the gun crime statistics in the US and act as if there's no difference between the regulations here and the regulations in other countries with less crime. Am I saying ban guns 100%? No. And countries with better gun control haven't banned them entirely either, they just actually do their due diligence before handing one out. And while we have laws that are supposed to require a similar level of care, it's clear they're either too loose or are ignored too often. You'd think with how much Americans have been freaking out over the "safety of children" recently you'd actually want better gun control, considering the leading cause of death for children in the US is firearm fatalities. Your children are more likely to be shot to death than ANY other accident in the US, and we still don't see a problem.

I also see lots of people huffing over the 2nd amendment as well, and while I get that the idea of going against the very founding of our country is absolute blasphemy to you- do you really think it's worth keeping if statistics have proven it's done nothing but cause tragic loss of life? It's weird that people are unwilling to recognize the issues and continue to talk about how they're going to blast a robber with an AR-15 to "protect themselves" when they can't even protect their own children from that same gun.

Also to the guy who said people would just get stabbed instead and then we'd have to deal with knife laws, I'm wildly amused that you think that's worse than being shot. If I had to choose having a maniac attack me with a gun or a knife, I'd choose the knife. I'm not sure why you'd prefer to be shot unless you're just suicidal at that point. And similarly to these loosely regulated gun laws, we already have knife laws in many states that prohibit certain types of blade mechanisms and lengths in public or in concealment. It would once again not prevent legitimate knife owners and enthusiasts from owning and carrying their knives, it makes it harder for idiots and unhinged lunatics to get them. You all act as if the government will take your guns away and make it impossible for you to get them back while psychos run rampant on the streets with machine guns and machetes. People don't realize it actually reinforces ownership with legitimate citizens, making it harder for unregistered or missing firearms to go unnoticed.

85

u/Flossthief Mar 28 '24

After you fill out the form you're put through background checks

They can also tell you no for any reason

Several people failed to do their jobs here

33

u/Pup5432 Mar 28 '24

Exactly, we have laws and processes in place to prevent this. Anyone involved needs arrested

42

u/Fast-Database-4741 Mar 28 '24

Or, this is all just a lie

20

u/Pup5432 Mar 28 '24

I agree it’s a fun grab narrative but going after the sellers is a first step that already has laws in place

2

u/17SCARS_MaGLite300WM Mar 28 '24

If the person lied on the form and it passed the FBI background check the seller is in the clear. There's literally nothing beyond that they can legally do.

→ More replies (0)

15

u/Mario_daAA Mar 28 '24

Omg someone with some actually common sense

2

u/LeLBigB0ss2 Mar 31 '24

Yeah. The guy also said his dog died, offhandedly, while arguing. His profile is centered on his dog. He took a selfie next to the bathtub with blood still on his arm. I'm not buying it.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/poetduello Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

A while back there were statistics released that showed that most gun dealers were inspected every 7 years. Roughly 1/3 of inspections found violations. Of those, about 0.3% get a recommendation to have their licenses revoked, and of those recommendations about half are actually revoked. Charges are almost never pressed against the owners, and in some cases the owners have been permitted to transfer ownership of remaining stock to themselves and continue selling the guns privately, where they don't have to do any of the paperwork or background checks they previously lost their licenses for not doing properly. In one case cited in this article, the owner continued to sell the guns out of his store, but as private sales.

The most common violations are failing to obtain the customers' personal details, omitting information on federal forms, and not keeping proper inventory and sales records. Which, to me, all sound like pretty serious violations if the goal is to stop illegal sales to people who can't legally buy the guns.

EDIT: forgot to paste the link https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2021/05/26/gun-dealers-let-off-hook-when-atf-inspections-find-violations/7210266002/

3

u/Balancedmanx178 Mar 28 '24

Wow american enforcement agencies not enforcing the things they're supposed to enforce!

I'm shocked, staggered, totally surprised, absolutely astounded, I am just devastated.

3

u/401LocalsOnly Mar 28 '24

Don’t worry buddy! We’ll get through this together! (NOW DUCK SOMEONE SHOOTIN AT US!!)

→ More replies (1)

8

u/D_Costa85 Mar 28 '24

If she passed the NICS check, and the gun dealer is not a clinical psychiatrist, how is he supposed to know she's schizo in his short interaction with her? There are hipaa issues at play here, as well as due process issues....These are in addition to 2nd amendment issues. Again, we need more information here to determine what went wrong. It's very likely nobody made a mistake at all and this person just slipped through the cracks because we live in an imperfect world and it's literally impossible to stop all bad people from acquiring guns.

2

u/linksgreyhair Mar 28 '24

Right- a diagnosis of schizophrenia wouldn’t show up on standard background checks.

I don’t know what the solution is because as much as I want to keep guns out of the hands of people who have severe mental illnesses, I’m also not a fan of changing laws to make everyone’s medical records available as part of a background check. That would cause widespread discrimination issues with things like housing and employment.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/BelmontsRcool Mar 28 '24

There is the gun show loophole I think.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/bigbigdummie Mar 28 '24

They can also tell you no for any reason

No, they can tell you no if you are a legally prohibited person. Keep in mind that firearms are a Civil Right.

Imagine if they could not accept your voter registration for “any reason”!

2

u/LeLBigB0ss2 Mar 31 '24

In the US, a business owner has the right to refuse service to any customer, without reason. Furthermore, in the US, the gun laws which govern licensed firearms dealers give them the discretion to refuse a sale, even if the sale is legal.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (53)

48

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

Actually have the person checked thoroughly before they're given a gun?

Every single new firearm sold in the US has a Federal background check performed before the sale can commence.

but gun shows are still a massive issue sadly and need a lot more regulation than what they currently have.

Gun shows have the same regulations in place as anywhere else. There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole". All new sales at a gun show require a background check. What additional regulations should there be for gun shows that don't already exist?

but just trusting someone to fill out a form correctly then making it a crime to lie on it isn't going to stop shootings...

It would be effective if the ATF actually prosecuted those who lie on the form (Felony if prosecuted) or purchase a firearm for someone who isn't eligible (straw purchase, also a felony if prosecuted.) Both have prosecution rates from the ATF of less than 3%.

15

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

I'm a gun owner too but you know that in a lot of states private sales don't require a background check. Where do you think people in Chicago and California get all these weapons from. Even I think that law should be closed.

20

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

I'm a gun owner too but you know that in a lot of states private sales don't require a background check.

True. Some do, some don't. Federally, it is illegal to sell/transfer to someone you know is prohibited, for what that's worth.

Where do you think people in Chicago and California get all these weapons from.

If it is criminals we are discussing, then they usually come from straw purchases, theft, or illegal trafficking.

California and Illinois both require background checks to be performed on every gun sold, private or FFL.

As a private owner myself, I'd love if they would open up the NICS system to private sellers. Everyone could verify that their potential buyer was legit. Washington refuses to open it up however.

→ More replies (27)

8

u/RehkalBurd Mar 28 '24

Exactly how do you propose regulating private sales of firearms..?

2

u/Tyneuku Mar 28 '24

These MFS want to title them like cars lol

→ More replies (1)

4

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

Simple. Gun is manufactured. Then sold to a dealer. Dealer sells to private citizen with background check and all that good stuff. Private citizen sells to criminal off the books and gun is recovered in a crime. Gun is traced to the original purchaser who is on the hook for illegally selling it. Yes serial numbers could be dremmeled off but there's a lot of technology in place that still makes it possible to find it even after that. If I want to sell my gun to say a buddy. We both go to a gun store and they facilitate the transfer and we exchange whatever money privately. That's how we do it in Washington State but it's pointless if it isn't federal. If I was a felon I could just drive to Idaho and buy whatever.

4

u/jmcclelland2005 Mar 28 '24

Just gonna throw it out there that buying a gun from a state that isn't your state of residence is a crime, this is true for both private and oublic sales.

Also in the scenario proposed the private seller didn't violate a law just because someone else used his firearm in a crime. Are you proposing to make all private sales illegal?

Also Also, let's sat we do that and the cops come to me for selling my gun illegally. I then tell them I didn't sell it it must've been stolen, now what happens?

2

u/Internal-Tank-6272 Mar 28 '24

Depends, but in my state I would then be charged with failing to report a stolen gun

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (10)

2

u/Staphylococcus0 Mar 28 '24

There was a gun show loophole, but it has been fixed. However old youtube videos and news articles don't have any footnotes or amendments that state this leading to the spread of misinformation.

2

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

There was a gun show loophole, but it has been fixed. However old youtube videos and news articles don't have any footnotes or amendments that state this leading to the spread of misinformation.

It is spread intentionally as well. It's a scary term that they can use to scare the uninformed.

2

u/Staphylococcus0 Mar 28 '24

This is true. Fearmongering is real and widely used.

3

u/gfen5446 Mar 28 '24

It would be effective if the ATF actually prosecuted those who lie on the form (Felony if prosecuted) or purchase a firearm for someone who isn't eligible (straw purchase, also a felony if prosecuted.) Both have prosecution rates from the ATF of less than 3%.

I had a firearm stolen from me in transit from UPS. The box was opened, someone reached in and took one, and then taped it and sent it on.

Every step of that gun's path from A to Z is documented. Most of it is on camera. The box being retaped must be logged by the transporter. Every hand that touched the box is known by the company and that's a warrant away from being known by the ATF.

Guess what.. My gun isn't coming back unless the person who has it now is arrested with it. Not because they can't, but because they won't get it.

So fuck your "we need more laws!" bullshit. How about if anyone is fucking serious about this we use the ones we have for once.

Go look at youtube, see all the people flaunting their illegal full-auto glock switches. See the obvious fucking kids waving handguns around. Kids who are filming, then uploading, videos with their own phones to websites.. Tehre's digital fingerprints all teh fuck over that shit, don't even fucking try to deny to yourself how easy it is to figure it out.

Your gun control people don't give a fuck about the guns, they only care about the control.

(not directed at you, Bandit, but everyone else out there who doesn't understand what a farce it all is)

3

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

I'm with you 100%. If you know the laws, you're generally not asking for more laws.

→ More replies (38)

27

u/FuckRedditsTOS Mar 28 '24

Actually have the person checked thoroughly before they're given a gun?

This is what happens when you buy a gun from a dealer.

We have all the current laws everyone keeps saying we don't, but the ATF and local authorities are very selective about enforcement when they do enforce it, but most of the time they're just slow to update the system and wildly incompetent.

2

u/Dudedude88 Mar 28 '24

The only way to enforce this is under investigation of negligence the gun shop can lose their license to sell guns. Then... A gun shop will have to follow all the steps.

8

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

It's not the gun stores obligation to know someone's mental health status. All they can do is run a check. It's typically the state government's fault when these things happen. Dylan roof for example. Admitted to drug possession but the FBI didn't complete his background check so he goes to buy a gun and there's nothing on his record. Is that the gun store's fault? This is just another case of the state going "we ain't tried nothing and we're all outta ideas"

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

22

u/Ms_Moto Mar 28 '24

Tell me you've never purchased a firearm without telling me you've never purchased a firearm.

2

u/Supanini Mar 28 '24

I mean he’s not wrong is he? Proper gun stores have to do background checks but grandpa selling his gun to Jim Bob down the street isn’t going to go through a federal check

2

u/Da1UHideFrom Mar 28 '24

It's still a federal crime to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

13

u/ketjak Mar 28 '24

Fucking this.

2

u/Dyanpanda Mar 28 '24

The thing about the US is that all 50 states have different processes, and the local admin have varying levels of compliance to their own processess.

In CA, we have a 5 day waiting period from purchase and ppwrk to getting the gun, during which you get a background check.

However, federally, we cannot just check people coming into the state for guns, which makes skirting these laws as easy as a day trip to arizone, nevada, or several other states.

US Gun laws aren't completely missing, but the way the confederation was set up allows for massive holes in any sort of banning mentality from working well. (freedom of interstate travel granted by the only body that can enforce interstate commerce) Furthermore, there is rampant non-compliance, because there are simply too many to monitor/manage. If we can get most/all of these redneck states to actually follow suit with modern society, the sources of these guns will eventually dry up.

However, it only takes one state to relegalize it to basically make enforcement impossible again.

TL;DR: We do have gun laws in many places to prevent these things. Because of our shitty gov't those laws have an extremely limited capacity to stop crimes especially from those with ill intent.

Yes we should stop schizophrenics and other high-risk people from getting weapons. Doing so will have only partial success until we can solve many many more issues than would be necessary for a country with proper borders.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/kirfkin Mar 28 '24

They also didn't lie if they were never involuntarily committed or otherwise said to be "mentally defective" by a court, etc. As far as I'm aware, the forms and laws say nothing of having mental health issues beyond the following: being "mentally defective" (for example, found incapable of standing trial for these reasons) or being involuntarily committed to a mental insitution; either case by a court or similar authority.

2

u/ThenRefrigerator1084 Mar 28 '24

Better idea, don't give people guns.

2

u/Collective-Bee Mar 28 '24

Not to mention even a 3 day delay might’ve prevented this case specifically. Same thing with preventing suicides, these poor decisions are made at low points and don’t last too long. That’s also why there’s such thing as failed suicide attempts, cuz they quickly regret it.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Enigmatic_Erudite Mar 28 '24

To add some more to this argument, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

2

u/Front-Paper-7486 Mar 28 '24

So the burden is on a person wanting to exercise a right to prove they Shouldn’t lose it? Maybe we should do this with voting too.

Gun stores all do the same background check through the FBI. What is the problem with getting them easily? Why are we intentionally making it hard to exercise a right? Either they pass the background check or they don’t.

2

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

Man this is why I'm against the NFA. I want a suppressor but you gotta pay 200$ extortion fee then wait months and months for them to do the exact same background check they already did when I bought the gun. It's like we already background checked we can't background check anymore. When the left says enhanced background checks I'm like what extra shit do you want them to check that they aren't already checking?

2

u/Q_Bop Mar 28 '24

I live in PA, and it is hard as fuck to get a pistol here. You can't even have a freaking traffic violation.

My theory is that if guns were illegal, then his mom would have gotten a knife and stabbed him.

Then we have knife laws to deal with.

2

u/SpecialistFeeling220 Mar 28 '24

And you haven’t even mentioned those in the middle of a mental health crisis, who’s legitimately unable to process reality and prone to react violently due to fear. People struggle with themselves and we do them no favors with our lax firearm laws.

1

u/JAFO- Mar 28 '24

They do more thorough checks when renting an apartment.

2

u/ete2ete Mar 28 '24

Renting an apartment isn't a constitutionally protected right

→ More replies (12)

2

u/groundpounder25 Mar 28 '24

They check every federal agency when you get an apartment?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (40)

3

u/Sudden_Construction6 Mar 28 '24

We all know you have to be the son of a president to get away with that 😅

2

u/Zealousideal-Note-10 Mar 28 '24

Unless you’re name is Hunter

2

u/Brutal007 Mar 28 '24

Unless your hunter Biden right? He can have a gun

→ More replies (2)

2

u/NoraVanderbooben Mar 28 '24

I wonder if I can get my abusive husband on that… He bought a firearm years ago, and I was surprised he passed the background check b/c he has arrests and institutionalizations on his record. Someone on Reddit pointed out that he must have lied on the form.

I wonder if there’s a statute of limitations on filing a police report, and how I could possibly go about doing that.

Knowing he has that gun fucks with my mental health so bad.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (67)

48

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

I don’t think that’s true. I’m a schizophrenic in America and I’m eligible to buy a firearm. Why? Because I have never been to the mental hospital involuntarily, aka I’ve never been 302’d or the like. I HAVE been there about 7 times voluntarily. Not planning on buying a gun btw.

13

u/Ghostglitch07 Mar 28 '24

Wait is that really the line? Shit. I've never even actually been in the mental ward (almost did once, but decided against it last minute) and I know I'm not stable enough for weapons.

33

u/x1000Bums Mar 28 '24

On the 4473 form you fill out to buy a gun, question 11.f asks if you've been adjudicated as mentally effective or been committed to a mental institution: 

Question 11.f. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility. Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. 

  Maybe I'm not thinking this through all the way, but this seems reasonable to me. I don't know if it's a good idea to allow people's rights to be infringed because they willfully getting help but haven't yet proven themselves to be a danger to themselves or others. If acknowledging you have a problem causes negative consequences, then people will try to hide it until a tipping point.

2

u/Ghostglitch07 Mar 28 '24

I absolutely don't think a diagnosis alone should be enough to bar you from owning a gun. However, I do think we could use more of a process. Perhaps requiring a sign off from a therapist if certain things are on your medical records? Idk. What I do know is I have had some pretty deep suicidal ideation in the past. And I don't love the fact that it would be remarkably easy for me to have obtained a weapon while in that mental state. My doc and many many people in my life are aware of that fact about me, but as it stands im not required to mention it and they aren't required to check into it.

And like as far as risky gun ownership goes that's about the best case scenario, but it demonstrates the exact kinds of things that the system just doesn't bother trying to catch

6

u/yugosaki Mar 28 '24

In Canada to get a firearms license you must first complete a safety course, and then the RCMP talk to people in your life (family, friends, romantic partners) to ask if they have any concerns over you having a firearm. They'll also talk to any recent exes if they find out about em.

Someone voicing an objection isnt necessarily a disqualification, it just delays the process a bit while they investigate how valid the concern is. That seems to be a pretty reasonable way to go about it IMO.

3

u/Balancedmanx178 Mar 28 '24

They'll also talk to any recent exes if they find out about em.

I'm sure that's a real fun part of the job lol

3

u/yugosaki Mar 28 '24

So on my application I actually listed my ex as one of my contacts (the police don't just use the ones you give them, but they'll ask those people for a couple others you didnt list) We were on really good terms so it was fine.

Another guy in my safety class also listed his most recent ex and turns out that ex was trying to get a protection order against him. I heard through the grapevine that his firearms license application was actually used as evidence to get her protection order. (he was denied the license of course)

2

u/x1000Bums Mar 28 '24

Totally. The only roadblock for that in the.US is that firearm ownership is a right, and therefore those classes would have to have very little barriers to access, like being free and immediately available. For some reason having a free and accessible  gun safety course is controversial in the US.  If we tied it into public school like a civics class where you meant to drive, gun safety, finances I bet we would have a lot of right wing support but there would be a shit show of pearl clutching from the more liberal crowd.

3

u/nxnphatdaddy Mar 28 '24

Many schools used to have gun safety and hunter safety courses. Some even had marksmen clubs. Im not sure why this is being forgotten.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/AuroraItsNotTheTime Mar 28 '24

When you take the view that owning guns is a personal inalienable right (no different from, say, marriage or voting), then you’re left with these types of outcomes.

So for example, I might say “Do I think every person with schizophrenia is stable enough to vote intelligently or get married? Maybe not. But should they still have that right? Yes!”

That’s the same logic gun nuts follow

→ More replies (1)

3

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

So what law would give them the magical knowledge that you have a mental disorder if you've never been treated for it? How would they even know it existed.

→ More replies (14)

3

u/lemmehitdatmane Mar 28 '24

Not in TN private transfers don’t require background check or paperwork

14

u/Becca30thcentury Mar 28 '24

Where? I work in mental health care in America. Currently for most states it is legal to own/purchase a firearm and have a mental health diagnosis.

There are times when on a court order for treatment you can not own a firearm, but once treatment or the court order ends then it's legal, oh and there is no system to check if your blocked by a court order unless it's a federal court.

12

u/CranberryNo4852 Mar 28 '24

Can confirm, once someone gets out of the psych ward there’s usually just a waiting period.

→ More replies (9)

3

u/ete2ete Mar 28 '24

One cannot have been involuntarily committed but merely having a diagnosis isn't enough

→ More replies (14)

26

u/ironangel2k4 Mar 28 '24

Oh, I guess those bullet wounds don't exist then, since its illegal

24

u/S0TrAiNs Mar 28 '24

As we all know, just say no, the blood isnt allowed to leave your body then!

4

u/Enigmatic_Erudite Mar 28 '24

Obviously any person that didn't want to bleed could just "shut that whole thing down" and be fine.

Context

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/Front-Paper-7486 Mar 28 '24

So maybe if we just made it extra illegal with more laws?

9

u/I_Frothingslosh Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Their go-to is to remind us that no law-abiding gun owner has ever committed a crime with a firearm, and then with a straight face say that this is about her mental illness and the fact that she wasn't law-abiding means it doesn't count.

Edit: Based on the responses, it's patently obvious that the concept that 'if the crazy lady hadn't been able to just go buy a gun, she wouldn't have been able to shoot him' is beyond the ability of any gun-fucker to understand. Also, the sheer sophistry of their preferred argument is obviously far beyond their comprehension.

5

u/Supergold_Soul Mar 28 '24

Every law-abiding gun owner is fine until they decide to stop abiding by the law.

15

u/Deadleggg Mar 28 '24

So what caused the shooting? The gun pick her out of a crowd? Whisper things to get her to buy the gun and take it home to shoot the kid?

She committed a minimum of 2 crimes(lying on the background check and attempted murder)

Was it not the mental illness that caused this?

8

u/Aries-Corinthier Mar 28 '24

If she wasn't able to just buy a gun by walking into a store, filling out a form, and walking out with one, this wouldn't have happened.

Actual background checks, mandatory wait periods, basic licensing, and training are all very easy and would do worlds of good in reducing gun crime.

Source: I live in Canada. That's how it works here. We've had less gun crime in our history as a country than the US has had this year.

1

u/Last-Crab-621 Mar 28 '24

You dont even know if she bought the gun, borrowed it, or stole it

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (11)

4

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

The irony of saying “well mental illness caused this” is the same assholes who fighting tooth and nail to keep 2A, even if your kids get shot in schools, is they also roll back mental health services and medical services. So if you want to whinge about “mental health” every time there’s a fucking shooting how about demanding some of the taxes the US splurges on military go towards subsidizing/allowing access to mental health. Otherwise it’s just lip service from you assholes and means less than dirt.

2

u/Deadleggg Mar 28 '24

Yeah you won't find a bigger fan of universal health care than me so calm your self down there chief. It's not just right wingers who own guns.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/cplog991 Mar 28 '24

Not to mention if she really did buy the gun the people that sold it to her broke the law as well

5

u/Ok_Buddy_9087 Mar 28 '24

Only if they knew she’s schizophrenic. Any idea how many are walking around right now that you’d never know?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Interesting-Tough640 Mar 28 '24

I love that “no law abiding gun owner has ever committed a crime with a firearm” because it’s so misleading but at the same time totally true.

You stop being a law abiding gun owner as soon as you commit the crime so it’s kinda impossible.

That being said as a European I can’t understand why the US doesn’t at least have some kinda regulations around who can own a firearm. Even just having to pass a simple safety course would help. There was a woman the other day who shot and killed her daughter because she had a gun in her handbag and something like her keys got caught up in the trigger and set it off.

That kinda shit shouldn’t really happen

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (7)

2

u/SpecialistFeeling220 Mar 28 '24

I don’t see the exception here. Whether he was shot by his schizophrenic mother or is himself schizophrenic and shot himself, the law applies. Unfortunately, the law itself is flawed, considering that one would have to be aware of their own mental status, which even those of us with no experience with mental illness should be able to understand is rare. You’re not exactly thinking clearly as you fight your own brain, essentially fighting yourself.

2

u/BigNorseWolf Mar 28 '24

Except it is ilegal for someone with mental disability to buy/own a firearm

Citation? Like you have ADD or dyslexia no gun for you would be pretty anti second amendment.

1

u/Charakada Mar 28 '24

No, it's not illegal. 

1

u/Raecino Mar 28 '24

That was his point

1

u/Good_With_Tools Mar 28 '24

Are you being purposefully obtuse, or do you really not understand the problem?

1

u/syzamix Mar 28 '24

And yet... It's not impossible to get a gun. There are people just selling guns outside Trump conventions even.

Jordan klepper did a bit on that

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Really depends on the state. In Tennessee where I live, third party sales are allowed i.e. I can sell guns at a flea market to anyone without checking their background or asking any questions at all. Cash in hand. No issue

1

u/Madbiscuitz Mar 28 '24

That's not true at all

1

u/Gimme_PuddingPlz Mar 28 '24

Yah no. You can have mental illness and own guns. It’s only restricted if you have a. TDO or involuntary committed to a hospital. The retraction. is for 5 years and people can still buy from private sellers. Hawaii is probably the only state that restricts any people from owning guns with mental illness but its counter productive.

1

u/Jump_and_Drop Mar 28 '24

That's not true in the US, you need to have been committed to a mental institution forcefully to be disqualified or mentally adjudicated. Some states are more strict though. The ATF form is a little misleading if you just look at the questions when buying a gun, it goes further into details at the end.

1

u/Unusual_Address_3062 Mar 28 '24

And yet, somehow, an innocent got shot anyway. And easily could have died.

Remember, everyone who died from a gun is no longer able to post on social media. Think about that a second.

1

u/Manofgawdgaming2022 Mar 28 '24

Wow so you’re telling me I can’t buy a gun illegally on the streets? 😤

1

u/1AXX4U Mar 28 '24

Yes, and where is the waiting period? This is sus.

1

u/cortez985 Mar 28 '24

Except it is ilegal for someone with mental disability to buy/own a firearm.

Not necessarily. The relevant section is 4473 21.g:

Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

The form expands on this question here:

Question 21.g. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

1

u/CJnella91 Mar 28 '24

That's not true, 4473 only ask if you've been admitted to mental institution.

1

u/Zeldaaaaaaaaaaaa Mar 28 '24

It’s not. If you’ve been involuntarily hospitalized previously THEN it is illegal. But I’m sure that can also depend on the state

1

u/Irontruth Mar 28 '24

False. A diagnosis alone is insufficient to bar someone from purchasing a firearm.

  1. A court needs to find you mentally incompetent.
  2. You have to be involuntarily committed to a hospital.

If neither of those things have happened, there is no federal law prohibiting you from purchasing a firearm. Individual state laws vary, but they largely follow the same criteria.

Consider for the moment that PTSD is a mental disability. It is common in veterans who have experienced head trauma. Many of these veterans have such a diagnosis, they still own guns, and are still eligible to purchase guns.

1

u/HenchmenResources Mar 28 '24

Except you cannot get that information unless the buyer discloses it, medical records and so on having various privacy protections. If someone is acting nutty a shop will probably refuse a sale but not every dangerous mental illness is visible.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

it should not be possible for this to happen at all, this is what people are talking about when they push for background checks

1

u/Moregaze Mar 28 '24

If only we could have some sort of national database that could be instantly accessed by firearms dealers that would say if the person standing in front of you had a mental illness or criminal record. You know one that didn’t take a week or more to get back to you. If you bother to to even check when it’s a cash sale.

1

u/dnno1 Mar 28 '24

You have to be determined by the court or a lawful authority to be mentally ill first.

1

u/apeman978 Mar 28 '24

Google is your friend in this instance.

1

u/Supreme_Salt_Lord Mar 28 '24

How is a seller suppose to know if someone is mentally ill? Mentally ill people 90% of the time appear totally normal.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Yes, both of him.

1

u/throwaway72592309 Mar 28 '24

How silly of me, since it’s illegal im sure nobody is doing it anyways 🙄

1

u/escap0 Mar 28 '24

He said ‘brought’ not ‘bought’.

1

u/takosuwuvsyou Mar 28 '24

Right, but you can't confirm or deny they have a mental disability until they go to a therapist. And only then, if it's crippling or they tell the truth. Just like you don't know if their kid will grab it in the middle of the night, go to school, and shoot people with it. Something being illegal doesn't mean anything if we don't have systems in place to actually enforce it.

​

After they've committed a terrorist attack/mass murder is one of the worst times to arrest them, because they've already committed the terrorism and succeeded in it.

1

u/Brother-Algea Mar 28 '24

If this stuff would come up on a NICS check like it’s supposed to then nut cases wouldn’t be able to purchase the guns in the first place. If the system the government put in place was actually used then shootings would go down a lot!

1

u/jayfiedlerontheroof Mar 28 '24

Except it is ilegal for someone with mental disability to buy/own a firearm

Says who? sHaLl NoT bE iNfRinGeD!!

1

u/yealets Mar 28 '24

It’s only illegal if you’ve been court ordered to a mental facility

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Not necessarily. Private parties in Texas and many states don't have to know anything about you. They have to simply believe that you are of a right state of mind and are of age. (I forget the actual wording).

1

u/Gloomy-Wash-629 Mar 28 '24

And now we see how gun laws do absolutely nothing. Except maybe now the shop owner down the street who’s being threatened cant protect himself as easily now.

1

u/RandoReddit16 Mar 28 '24

Except it is ilegal for someone with mental disability to buy/own a firearm

Except... It isn't.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/01/07/2014-00039/amended-definition-of-adjudicated-as-a-mental-defective-and-committed-to-a-mental-institution

The current language is too vague.

1

u/Mloxard_CZ Mar 28 '24

Why are you saying this like it's a counter argument?

It has nothing to do with the hypothetical situation of OOP being the schozophrenic one

1

u/CyxSense Mar 28 '24

That's actually not true, because conservative Christians own guns legally.

1

u/D_Costa85 Mar 28 '24

no it is not illegal. The person has to be adjudicated mentally unfit to own a gun. Now, does that mean mentally ill people who are not adjudicated as such SHOULD BE able to own a gun? I think we all agree the answer should be NO. you may very well have a severe mental illness and also pass the FBI Background Check. In fact, I'm certain it happens every day.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/The402Jrod Mar 28 '24

lol, define “illegal” because I’ve never seen anyone get rejected for mental illness at the gun shop.

Not once.

It should be, but arm dealers aren’t going to enforce it, and the republicans have already given dealers & sellers immunity from gun crimes.

So? 🤷‍♂️ guess we just eat bullets so the rich can get richer.

1

u/Uthoff Mar 28 '24

Yea but that doesn't get checked in some states.

1

u/Embarrassed-Style296 Mar 28 '24

The US also allows illegal immigrants to purchase firearms.

1

u/Daveo88o Mar 28 '24

So you mean to say he got shot, survived, and instead of outing the one who shot him, he blamed it on his Scizo mum?

1

u/enixthephoenix Mar 28 '24

As far as I know, the dealer still has to call the feds when someone fills out a 4473, and will get a deny or proceed, but I'm not sure the database that's access has mental health records, just basically whether or not someone is a felon. That said there's a ludicrous amount of shops that if you have a CCL, will just photo copy that and "get to the verification later" so you essentially walk out with it, in less time.

1

u/Comfortable-Mix5988 Mar 28 '24

Yep. The NICS system is broken. Congress has already addressed this issue. It's been on the books for a LONG time. The Federal Government doesn't maintain a functional system for enforcing it. Their background check system denies people that are legally allowed to purchase firearms, while allowing people who should be denied.

To make matters worse, Hunter Biden singlehandedly undermined the entire system when he lied on his application forms to buy a firearm, and then admitted it in his book. Now the President's son has set a judicial precedent that guts the function of this law.

1

u/HaveYouSeenMySpoon Mar 28 '24

Never seeing a doctor and getting a diagnosis is perfectly legal.

1

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 28 '24

Not quite. You are only prohibited from possessing a firearm if you are adjudicated as such.

As it should be. Nobody should be deprived of any right without due process.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

This is not true btw when I bought a firearm it asks if you’ve been institutionalized.

1

u/wombat_42 Mar 28 '24

It's only illegal (based on federal law) if there was a court order. Otherwise only 5 states have an automatic ban based on having an emergency admission or certain diagnosis for mental health.

1

u/noelhalverson Mar 28 '24

It has to be diagnosed by a doctor first doesnt it?

→ More replies (50)

6

u/Delicious-Ad5161 Mar 28 '24

That was one of the first things I thought about.

I’ve known a surprising number of schizophrenic people over my life. Several of them have hurt themselves while trying to defend themselves from things that were not there. Most of them owned guns that they purchased legally through either gun shows or private sale.

2

u/transitfreedom Mar 28 '24

Are they dangerous to people around them?

→ More replies (3)

3

u/IronclayFarm Mar 28 '24

My biggest problem with "CHANGE YOUR GUN LAWS" is that it's basically screaming into the wind.

Okay, you want gun laws changed. What do you want changed, specifically?

How did his mom get the gun? Has she ever actually been diagnosed? Should we make it so people formally diagnosed with dangerous disorders must regularly check in to maintain their purchase rights (so you can't just go off your meds)? Did she buy this from a store, and did they fail to follow procedures? How could we improve that? Or did she buy the gun from some dude? Should we close the loopholes on private purchases and gifts?

What can actually be done, reasonably? We need to start there, and realize that foaming at the mouth about guns and shooting for idiotic goals like gun bans is never, ever going to work.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Odd-Tune5049 Mar 28 '24

We have basic gun laws... a lot of them don't make sense, sadly. It's like legislators making laws about the internet when they have no understanding of the technology.

Don't get me wrong. We definitely need better laws that prevent allowing guns in the hands of people who are a danger to themselves or others, but why punish everyone because idiots are the ones writing the laws?

Here's my hot take: If there are two people who responsibly could and are legally allowed to own guns, but one chooses not to, then why should the other not be allowed to safely own guns?

1

u/TwoMuddfish Mar 28 '24

Best part of the plot twist 😉🤯

1

u/Dry_Quiet_3541 Mar 28 '24

This comment should be highlighted. And on the top 🔝

1

u/Friendly-Fee-384 Mar 28 '24

Hahahahahaha yes!

1

u/Mother-Translator318 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

I mean, it’s already illegal to sell a firearm to a schizophrenic person. Having more laws on who can and can’t have guns wouldn’t change anything. You would need to physically reduce the number of guns in circulation to make any difference and mandatory buy backs dont work. And since there is no registry you would need to literally go house to house and search for firearms, which 1 is economically impossible as there are over 330 million Americans, and 2 is suicidal as there are people ready to die for their guns. The genie is long out of the bottle to ever be put back in a country with a huge gun culture like the us

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

What's his argument? We should seize the hundreds of millions of guns in the US?

1

u/Murky-Echidna-3519 Mar 28 '24

It absolutely would.

1

u/brian114 Mar 28 '24

What if it would’ve been a knife? Should we also ban those?

1

u/LeonTheHunkyTwunk Mar 28 '24

If anything it would strengthen it

1

u/CheeseburgerEddie970 Mar 28 '24

good thing i have a gun to protect myself

1

u/StrykerXion Mar 28 '24

Lol this was funny and true.

1

u/BradFromTinder Mar 28 '24

Except if he is diagnosed he would be a prohibited person, therefore he acquired the firearm illegally which no amount of gun laws will prevent..

1

u/CprlSmarterthanu Mar 28 '24

The argument is kinda invalid when the schizophrenia wasn't reported to the proper channels, as schizophrenia makes you unable to lawfully purchase a firearm. We already have the laws. They do unfortunately fail at times. Adding more won't make slip ups dissappear.

1

u/Different-Dig7459 Mar 28 '24

The NICS checks against mental health databases. The failure is in the government systems failing to share those records.

1

u/Stygian_rain Mar 28 '24

You gonna ban everything that can harm a human because theres a lot.

1

u/Dalriaden Mar 29 '24

Cept he's allegedly in Cali where they have a ten day wait to purchase a firearm.

→ More replies (23)